Saturday, February 23, 2013

Animal Welfare Task Force - A Farce

You my recall that I addressed the fact that our Animal Welfare Task Force was a joke in it's slanted composition, lack of transparency, the glaring membership omissions, as well as being regionally biased.  I knew this task force was farce the day I saw the Senate Resolution creating it was enacted, and to watch it accomplish what was predicted  ("Most likely just more of the same drama and chaos that CAPA brought us") is not surprising at all.

Composition and Omissions Had A Purpose

At Thursday's task force meeting, Senator Patricia Blevins revealed an outline of her recommendations that would be recommended to the Governor.  This was not a collaborative recommendation by the task force. Everyone was well aware of the fact that it was a recommendation brought forth by the 2 members of the task force that brought us CAPA in the first place, the sponsor and the writer of the legislation.  It was discussed that a new Animal Welfare section would be setup under the Division of Public Health.  As I noted, it was odd that Public Health was not included on the task force, but there was  reason for that -  Public Health can't object to the recommendation if they don't have a seat at the table on the task force ;)  Below is the outline of the new section that was provided to the task force members.

Animal Welfare Office
Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Public Health

• Executive Director
     o Represent office to the public
     o Oversee staff and overall office function
     o Research and make recommendations regarding:
           • Making licenses easier to obtain and beneficial to owners
           • Possible revenue streams (licensing, grants, license plates)
           • Animal control contracts and how best to structure
           • Animal cruelty statute
           • TNR
           • Requirements for rescue organizations
     o Public education regarding spay/neuter, licensing, proper care, etc.
     o Arrange training for prosecutors

 • Deputy Director
     o Shelter standards investi gation and oversight
     o Inspection of shelters (and licensed retai lers?)
     o Rabies calls and follow-up

• Spay/neuter oversight
     o Run state spay/neuter program

• Animal Control Officer
     o Oversee training and certification for animal control officers
     o Handle complaints
     o Dangerous dog panel

• Administrative Position:
     o Operate statewide database, with all shelters participating
     o Oversee lost and found database
     o Provide administrative support for entire office

There had already been talk of this scenario when the writer of CAPA and our HSUS representative, who are both on the task force, made the rounds with various parties (shelters, rescues, etc), discussing claims that such an agency would be created and talk of $6 million to assist animal welfare in the state of Delaware.  Lobbying at it's best, with half truths that accomplish nothing for the animals.

Well part of the scenario they discussed was apparently truthful - the new section.  But from the discussion at the task force meeting, it was discussed that this new scenario would only have a $500,000 budget for the state.  Basically the $500,000 would cover salaries, benefits, and expenses for the new agency.  Not one additional dime to actually help an animal.  Now this truly is animal welfare "the Delaware Way".  It's just shameful.

Slap In The Face

It's not only a slap to the very animals that suffer as the result of CAPA, it was also a slap in the face to other members of the Animal Welfare Task Force.  To sit through meetings month after month and listen to issue after issue, and then have a recommendation that was most likely hatched well before they even started meeting, shows the lack of respect the politicians have for the time spent by their fellow task force members, and that of the the constituents that bothered to make public statements to this committee.  It also shows how cowardly they are to use the cover of a task force to merely create an Executive Director to make the recommendations that the task force thought they would take part in making.

I hope Delaware's press, some of which I know read this blog, keep an eye on this development.  I personally wonder whether this subterfuge was merely a way to create a job for the person that wrote CAPA.  I've thought that from the beginning, and even if I'm wrong, I have no doubt that the person will be someone hand picked by our Senate President.  And I have no doubt that the person will continue to make CAPA even worse than it already is.

What's even stranger about this development is the fact that our Division of Public Health doesn't have a veterinarian on staff like other states.  So instead of a State Veterinarian examining shelter medical records, we could possibly have an attorney or simply a government administrator determining whether a euthanasia procedure was warranted.  Maybe we should allow the state Attorney General's office employees to be cross trained to do human autopsies for cases they prosecute to help offset the additional $500,000 to the budget that isn't going to help animals (head shake & eyeroll).

Rewarding Failure

While I continue to defend HSUS, PETA, and ASPCA, and the various works they perform on behalf of animals, I will say I'm disappointed that HSUS would reward the very people that brought us CAPA and the unenforceable tether bill.

"Blevins led the initiative for Delaware’s low-cost spay/neuter law, which funds those services for income-eligible pet owners. It is funded through a $3 rabies vaccination surcharge. She also led the effort to define standards of care for animals in shelters, and procedures to ensure animals receive every opportunity to be adopted. Most recently she was the primary sponsor of legislation, signed into law in August, that defines continuous dog tethering as a crime of animal cruelty. She also established and chairs the state’s Animal Welfare Task Force, which convened last year." - Widener Law page
Does that mean I agree with Nathan Winograd's continual blasting of these organizations?  Absolutely not.  I know HSUS provides alot of services that benefit animals (disaster relief, large scale rescues, protecting research animals, etc).  Certainly more services than no-kill advocacy groups or CAPA does.  And to be honest, the whole no-kill hate crusade reminds me of communist countries where officials coerce donations, and I have to wonder why any politician would want anything to do with the no-kill hate movement.

And even though I realize this alliance between the no-kill movement and HSUS probably has more to do with the fact that we're a small state, which allows them an easier outlet to get example legislation passed, and they probably have another agenda here that relates to factory farming, I hope they understand that participating with the no-kill movement in Delaware will make them just as complicit in the horror that continues to occur to animals.  And that it will worsen under the proposed recommendations at the top.  It's not that I don't have compassion for livestock and other species, but I just don't think it's appropriate to throw Delaware's companion animals under the bus to accomplish other reforms.

What Happens Next?

It should be interesting to see what will happen next.  The counties should understand that this will not be a good thing for their budgets.  If CAPA is made even worse, allowing complaints and lawsuits to dominate animal welfare, our shelters will continue to lose money, and this negative atmosphere will threaten the viability of all our animal shelters.  If this recommendation being proposed is enacted, I have no doubt that nonprofit shelters will pull out of animal control contracts rather than deal with the litigation friendly world that CAPA has created.  It's no wonder that The Delaware Trial Lawyers Association supported the politicians that brought us CAPA.  

Even though I think the counties do see where this is going, the question will be whether or not they have sufficient backbone to stop the next layer of unfunded mandates that will place an additional strain on their budgets. County officials need to make their opposition clear, or they have nobody but themselves to blame. 

Veterinarians and pet owners in Delaware should also be concerned, because it's just a matter of time before the no-kill movement begins to question your choices on euthansia, and we're already seeing the movement fight to change animal status under the law that may increase veterinarian malpractice costs, and those costs will be passed onto consumers.

If this does play out, it will be interesting to watch as the counties become the ones under fire and dealing with the lawsuits.  And while they may be able to ignore nuisance cat calls now that they have nonprofit shelters as their buffers, it will be interesting to see what happens when a county has it's own dog control and constituents are calling their commissioners directly.  So it may not turn out to be the nirvana that rescuers who believe in no-kill had hoped for.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Math Is An Issue In Delaware Too

In follow up to my previous post regarding the ridiculous math used by the national no-kill movement to justify their erroneous assertion that pet overpopulation does not exist, there appears to be a similar lack of mathematical ability and tossing numbers about that occurs in our own state of Delaware.

Is FREE Even Helping?

Here is a post by from the No-Kill Delaware facebook page who does have contacts within the Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary who handles dog control for Kent County.

This post was made this week, based on a recent television appearance by Safe Haven's director.  I've tried to stay away from discussing Safe Haven because I wanted to give them an opportunity to get their affairs in order after their board removed their previous executive director, but there still appears to be issues there. 

Despite handing out animals for free, their seems to be a disconnect in regards to how many animals are in their care.  The No-Kill Delaware post above touts the fact that they claim to only have 170 dogs and that their dog population has decreased due to "adoptions, transfers to Faithful Friends and Pitbull Pride, even as more stray dogs are picked up in Kent County".  While that sounds great on the surface, many of us are still hearing that animals are going out the door without being spayed or neutered.  I can't confirm that, but before we were hearing similar second hand information, and as it turned out that it was true.  

It's also disconcerting that there seems to be so many discrepancies in the information that is coming out of Safe Haven.  Keep in mind that they have yet to post any statistics for even the first quarter (ending 9/30) that they had the Kent County contract, so the discrepancies are even more of an issue.  Today, one of their board members sent out an appeal to rescues for help that directly contradicts the lowering dog population statement last week.
Subject: Introducing Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary
Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary is in Georgetown, DE. Our web site is 
We just became a Network Partner for No More Homeless Pets and need help. 
We took the animal control contract in Kent County, DE away from a kill shelter. They currently have the contract for the other 2 counties in DE. Safe Haven may bid for those when the current contract expires.  We are overflowing with animals and are paying kennels in our area to handle this problem. We currently have over 200 dogs at our shelter and 70 cats. We also feed 900 cats thru our Pet Pantry program. 
Could you possibly take some of our dogs? Any help you may provide would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Board Member
Safe Haven Animal Sanctuary

I have taken out the board members name due to the fact that CAPA has made Delaware a litigation haven for attorneys, but it has been passed onto a number of people that can confirm it exists, and I have it on file.  

I haven't seen any major increase in the numbers of lost dogs picked up on Safe Haven's website or Facebook page, so how are they now "overflowing" with over 200 dogs again.  And sadly, while the math part is disconcerting enough, it's how unrealistic and unprofessional this organization must be to think that they are prepared to take on 2 other counties when they are warehousing animals in boarding kennels in their desperation to keep these dogs alive at any cost and that's with only handling one county contract.

As I've noted before, I don't understand how our state attorney general can sit by and wait for this to get even worse.  My fear is that Delaware will end up in the national headlines like Lied Animal Shelter did in 2007.  And while some will argue that it doesn't matter because "alive is all that matters", there is suffering in being warehoused and the eventual outbreaks that usually occur as a result.

On A Lighter Note

It appears our legislators also have a similar dysfunction with math.  There was an email posted on the No-Kill Delaware Facebook page from Senator Patricia Blevins.  

The part that amused me was the reference to the Shelter Standards law (CAPA) being "enacted nearly 4 years ago".  I'm not sure how she can think 4 years have gone by since July 2010, rather than the actual 2.5 years.  But then again we have had enough drama to create a 10 year soap opera already.  

I'm glad the amount of time feels longer to the legislators that made this mess.  I'm sure it feels even longer to the poor animals that are suffering in boarding kennels without any sign of the problems abating.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Do The Math - The Real Math

The core premise of the No-Kill Movement is that overpopulation is a myth.  That if shelter workers just work harder, euthanasia would be a rare occurrence that would only be needed when animals are suffering or extremely aggressive.  Unfortunately, most on the front lines know that is not the case. Despite the fact that there are more shelters and rescues today providing more space for animals, and despite more money being spent today than in years past, according to various estimates we are still performing euthanasia on 3-4 million animals a year.
The number of animals euthanized each year has decreased dramatically over the past four decades, from some 20 million in 1970 to about 3 million in 2011. Meanwhile, the number of pets has more than doubled since the 1970s, to about 160 million dogs and cats, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. - Christian Science Monitor
According to this same article it's noted that low cost spay neuter contributed greatly to the large drop from 20 million to 3 million. Despite this knowledge, there are some that think spay neuter should take a back seat to scrambling animals out the door, no matter where they might end up.  They've even tried to codify that scramble in the form of rescue access laws like CAPA.
"While spay neuter is important, our goal has never been no more births, even though reducing birth rates might help. Our goal has been and is, and has always been no more killing. And when you focus on the no more killing part, spay neuter actually takes a backseat to all those other programs like foster care, and adoptions, and helping people overcome the challenges they face that cause them to surrender their animals."   - Nathan Winograd on AnimalWise Radio 4/22/12
Unfortunately, one only needs to watch the national news to realize that we have an epidemic of rescues and individuals providing poor conditions for animals, and in some cases are even hoarding situations.  While the majority of rescues are performing a valuable service to the community, it is concerning that we are seeing more and more stories about rescue failures in the scramble to get animals out of shelters.

On a bright note, there are still some that promote spay neuter as the first tool in the arsenal, affordable  and accessible spay neuter.  Ruth Steinberger's recent article Animal Shelter Numbers Tell Only a Part of the Story on the Huffington Post, points to the part of the animal population that the No-Kill Movement appears to ignore - the animals obtained from friends, family members, or strays.  The population of animals accounts for the largest percentage of animals obtained by Americans.
According to the American Pet Products Association (APPA) the world's leading pet products and manufacturers trade association, the largest source of household pets is not the local animal shelter, a breeder, or a pet store. A 2012 APPA poll revealed that while 21 percent of dogs are obtained from shelters and 26 percent from breeders, 39 percent are from the combined random sources of friend, family member or stray -- sources that typically reflect impulse decisions, not planned adoptions. The number of cats obtained from a friend, family member or stray is reported to be 75 percent. And for both dogs and cats, the number obtained as a stray is greater than the number coming from pet stores. These figures represent the cycles of pets in poverty; pets obtained from these sources are at risk of producing even more unintended litters that are also likely to join the ranks of the invisible homeless. - Ruth Steinberger

No-Kill's Flawed Math

Here is a screenshot of a promotional picture that the No-Kill Movement has posted all over the internet and their various Facebook pages.  The issue is that it misrepresents the supply side of the equation.  Shelter animals are not the complete source for animals obtained in the U.S.  While there is no substantiation to show that 23,500,000 animals will be acquired by Americans in a year, I will use No-Kill's assumptions.  Since the numbers would be based on surveys from previous years, then it's logical to conclude that if there were 23,500,000 animals obtained, and 4,000,000 animals were left behind and killed, then ultimately the full supply of animals from all sources using their numbers would be 27,500,000.

No-Kill Graphic

So if 27,500,000 is the supply of animals in a year, and there are only homes for 23,500,000 of the animals, there is an overpopulation of 4,000,000 million.  So why would the No-Kill Movement be less than transparent by listing the supply as 8,000,000 shelter animals versus the 27,500,000 of animals from all sources.  Because then it would become apparent to their followers that the central theme of their movement, that overpopulation is a myth, is a sham.

So isn't the image below a more accurate depiction of the that supply and the fact that overpopulation does exist?  It may not be done by a professional like theirs, but most shelter workers and rescues on the front lines who work hard to place animals, but still finding their operations full, already know this to be true.

A More Accurate Interpretation of the NK Graphic

The No-Kill graphic implies that there are 17,000,000 homes to market shelter animals to, in a hope that shelter animals will obtain a larger market share of animals acquired.  Where the logic fails, is that it doesn't address what will happen to the animals from other sources.  If a breeder cannot sell the animals he bred, those animals will end up in a shelter.  But more importantly, since the majority of animals are acquired from friends, family and strays, any animals pulled away from this source will most certainly end up in the shelter to replace the additional shelter pet that was placed.

Given that all Americans that chose to acquire an animal did acquire one, the only solution at that point would be to find 4,000,000 homes that were not looking to acquire an animal.  That very premise could explain why hoarding cases are increasing.  Many of the No-Kill communities regularly lament that they are becoming overcrowded, and then beg for the community to come out and adopt to alleviate the overcrowding. Unfortunately gaining that 4,000,000 additional market share comes at a price as residents and rescues take on more than they can afford or care for properly.  Just look at the costs that shelters across the country have absorbed in handling the large number of hoarding cases in recent years.

This shows that lowering the animal population through prevention should take center stage when it comes to lowering euthanasia rates.  The math is simple.  Overpopulation exists, and lowering the supply side of the equation with affordable and accessible spay neuter is a far more cost effective and fiscally responsible solution for communities.  So I will continue to believe in the logical numbers that animal welfare advocates like Ruth Steinberger and Peter Marsh put forward, because leaving those animals that come from other sources out on the streets or warehouses in a boarding kennel, like we've done in Delaware, is not a solution.  

Friday, February 8, 2013

The Sky Is Falling!!! - CAPA Drama

It seems fitting that on the day CAPA was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives (H.F. No. 391), Delaware was yet again paying the price for this awful piece of legislation.  I'm sure most of us remember the story of Chicken Little, and that seemed to be tone of the day here in Delaware.  No-Kill activists contacting the governor's office, legislators, and who knows who else.

Gas Chamber Panic Sets In

On Wednesday, No-Kill Delaware posted the following on their Facebook page.

Hours later, Kevin Usilton emailed No-Kill Delaware that gassing was still legal, and as a result of CAPA.  While he was in part correct that a section of the old Chapter 80 language was removed that referenced decompression chambers, and that gas chambers are legal in Delaware, both sides are incorrect in their analysis of the legislation.

In fact, CO2 gas chambers have never been banned in Delaware for animal shelters.  No shelters use them, but that was done by choice, not by legal mandate.  Apparently someone in Washington DC knew this (HSUS), but there seems to be a disconnect in Delaware when it comes to reading legislation.

The key issue here was that decompression chambers are not the same thing as a CO2 gas chamber.  Both sides merely needed to read the through the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia that was listed under the legislation.  Actually, they didn't even need to read it.  They could have simply searched the document for chamber and decompression as I did, and they would have found that decompression chambers are considered an unacceptable method of euthanasia, and that CO2 is listed as acceptable under certain conditions.  That would have given them some hint that a decompression chamber is not the same as a CO2 chamber.  And because decompression chambers are listed as unacceptable under the AVMA Guidelines, they are in essence still banned, even under CAPA.  Since I know Mr. Usilton has brought up the issue at one of the task force meetings, and it wasn't clarified by the writer or legislators.  So it appears that the decompression chamber ban is still in place despite the language removal under CAPA, and that it was not by design, but merely by blind luck.

(c)                 Euthanasia Method and Procedure.
(i)                   The Department shall promulgate regulations regarding acceptable methods of euthanasia and regarding sanitation and ventilation of euthanasia areas.  The methods included shall be approved or conditionally approved by the most recent AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia.
(ii)                 Any animal shelter performing euthanasia shall have a current policy and procedure manual regarding euthanasia.  The policy and procedure manual shall set forth the shelter’s equipment, process, and the procedures for individual separation of animals.
(iii)                Euthanasia must be performed by:
                                                           (a)      A licensed veterinarian;
                                                           (b)      A nationally certified euthanasia technician; or
                                                           (c)      A person certified by a licensed veterinarian, after passing both a written and practical examination, as proficient to perform euthanasia.  Training and certification requirements may be established by regulation.
(iv)               Following their injection, animals shall be lowered to the surface on which they are being held and shall not be permitted to drop or otherwise collapse without support.
(v)                 The trained staff member performing the euthanasia shall remain in attendance between the time procedures to euthanize the animal are commenced and the time death occurs, and shall verify death has occurred using methods to be determined by regulation.”
Section 4.  Amend the newly designated §8006, Chapter 80, Title 3 of the Delaware Code by deleting the phrase, “Use of decompression chamber to be prohibited;” in the title thereof, and by deleting subsection (a) and redesignating the remaining subsections accordingly.

Taxpayers Dollars At Work Spinning Wheels

So once the panic had truly set in, it was time to start yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!"

The posts telling people to contact every level of state government began.  Below are some of them.

No-Kill Delaware Blog Post 2 - More on Kent County SPCA, Gas Chambers and CAPA

Based on the posts, it seem that alot of state man hours were lost in various agencies today as a result of yet another CAPA drama.  Legislators and their aids, state workers in the governor's office, and the Department of Agriculture are all listed on these posts. No wonder the governor needed to make the temporary tax increases permanent.  

Sadly, wouldn't the Dept of Agriculture's time been better spent keeping our food supply safe?  Wouldn't the governors office and legislators have been more productive creating policy that would bring decent paying jobs into the state.  No, in the world of CAPA, everyone was and probably still are, investigating an issue that doesn't exist. 

And on a side note, keep in mind, that No-Kill Delaware and the Pro/Con page are the same pages that consistently claim that they have investigated an issue, and know better than the rest of us what our laws say. That have said that both Mr. Usilton and I were wrong about Title 9 humane care standards being mandated under dog control, but then whoops it turned out we were correct.  And amusingly, they have lamented that the press does not take them seriously.  Maybe the press has just grown tired of being fed incorrect information, and no longer see them as credible.  I'm sure the press can see that if KCSPCA was performing euthanasia by injection before without a ban on CO2 gas chanbers, that No-Kill Delaware's fear mongering has no credence.

I'm hopeful that Minnesota will see the light and not pass CAPA. If they do, every page of this blog regarding CAPA will eventually be their future.   

Friday, February 1, 2013

CAPA - A Lawyer's Best Friend

While a dog may be man's best friend, laws like the Companion Animal Protection Act are a dream come true for attorneys.  It is a law designed by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.  CAPA was written by an attorney at the national level, and Delaware's version based on that law was also written by an attorney, who was on the board of directors for a local no-kill organization, who became a policy advisor for Governor Markell.  So it's not surprising that the only ones that are benefiting from CAPA are attorneys.

This law that our governor and legislature passed may benefit the law profession, but their benefit comes at the expense of the animals it is supposedly intended to protect.  Every dollar a shelter spends on pulling documentation for investigations or litigation is one less dollar being spent on caring for animals and prevention services.  Case in point, before CAPA all 3 counties had low cost spay neuter services available.  Now only one county does, and that's New Castle County.  As previously discussed, it's no surprise that Kent and Sussex were provided far less representation on the Animal Welfare Task Force, and all but one of the meetings are also in New Castle County.  The state wouldn't want the very counties impacted the most to bring to light the real conditions under CAPA.  The lowering of services shows us the financial pressure that is being placed on shelters due to the "No-Kill" agenda, and has been harmful to animals in the first state.

Most Recent Lawsuit

As noted previously, complaints and lawsuits continue to siphon away funding from the animals in Delaware. Recently there was an article regarding the newest lawsuit using CAPA (the weapon of mass harassment).

Party Type
Filing Date

"The suit seeks court orders barring the use of “temperament” tests that allow an animal to be put down; barring the Kent County SPCA from euthanizing animals if any space exists in the shelter; and ordering an independent monitor, at the Kent County SPCA’s expense, to ensure compliance with the state’s shelter standards, among other remedies.
Usilton said he believes the suit is part of an organized effort because he saw a copy of the filing and a story about it on the website of the activist group No Kill Delaware before he received any notification from the courts." - Sean O’Sullivan,

I also find the motive suspect when someone sends a copy of the lawsuit to No-Kill Delaware on the very same day it is filed, before the court would even have an opportunity to serve the shelter with the the case.

What does an attorney have to gain by filing a lawsuit of this type?  Mr. Crowther has already benefited from free publicity in the DelawareOnline article and the No-Kill Delaware blog about the case.  The lawsuit also asks for costs and attorney's fees for a case brought about by this attorney, who filed the case on behalf of his own wife, so there is also a potential monetary motivation.  If the plaintiff in this lawsuit was to prevail in barring temperament testing currently done by responsible shelters, the added risk of dangerous dogs being released to residents would also benefit the law industry.  More bites would benefit attorneys across the state with added opportunity for litigation.  And more importantly, that litigation would impact a shelter like Kent County SPCA the most, which would provide the "No-Kill" community with yet another weapon against Kent County SPCA.

We've already seen multiple instances that show what choosing to not temperament test looks like.  Whether it be the dog from a "No-Kill" shelter that had to be shot when it attacked a resident's dog in the park, another dog from a "No-Kill" shelter that attacked a residents dog downstate.  Dog bites are always a risk, but do we really want to increase the likelihood of deadly dogs attacks like the one last year that resulted in the death of a postal worker?  And no child should ever have to suffer a devastating dog attack like the one in this story, just to provide attorneys with a new revenue stream.  Based on the fact that Austin has seen a 35% increase in dogs bites since going "No-Kill", I'm sure attorneys across the state can look forward to benefiting from CAPA if Mr. Crowther were to win.  Unfortunately the animals would lose out as potential adopters back away from shelter adoptions as more bite cases occur.

One irony in this case is that Mr. Crowther has also represented Chris Tigani in the past, a liquor distributor who I previously noted in the CAPA - An Example of "The Delaware Way" post as having ties to a number of politicians in Delaware, and who subsequently was imprisoned for illegal contributions.  The cast of characters and the various relationships in Delaware could rival a season of the television show Dallas. Maybe that's what we need to do to become "No-Kill", start a new reality show called "The Delaware Way" that would fund shelter operations, pay for all the litigation, and reinstate low cost spay neuter throughout the state.  I guess I should watch what I say, since our state government might consider creating a law to require all shelters participate in the reality series so the politicians could have a photo op on each show.

Other Cases

Most notable of other cases under CAPA is the Neo (Canine Nation) case which began in September 7, 2011, and has yet to be resolved.  

Party Type
Filing Date

This was one of the very first cases in CAPA that I discussed in my very first post.

Neo when released by KCSPCA to Canine Nation

Neo after 40+ days under Canine Nations care

It appears in a recent docket entry that there has been a withdraw of the Plaintiff's counsel.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that No-Kill Delaware was recently seeking out additional legal assistance on a CAPA case, but I doubt it.

And it appears that someone from the Maryland Animal Law Center has answered their call.  The reference "contacted NW re: this" is rather amusing.  There's no way to say whether this individual is referencing Nathan Winograd, but I guess it could just be an acronym for nitwit too.

But I think this makes it clear that there is coordinated effort by the "No-Kill" movement to bleed Kent County SPCA financially into submission, so they will warehouse animals like other shelters in the state.  Whether the lawsuits are to defend a rescue who had a dog in their care that ended up on the streets of Wilmington emaciated and bitten up, or whether it is a lawsuit to end temperament testing that serves to protect residents, all the lawsuits have the same result no matter who wins.  That result is that every dollar paying staff to pull files and pay attorneys to defend years of litigation, are dollars taken away from caring for the animals.  Too bad we can't wake up and find out the last season of "The Delaware Way" was just a bad dream reminiscent of other soap operas.